Nobody will deny Steve Jobs is hugely talented..possibly awkward and not easy to work for (often goes with the territory of being successful in many fields)It's a shame about his personal health problems and I think everyone will agree on that. I would not wish that on anyone no matter who they are.

I think long term it will impact Apple to a degree he took a risk with many ideas some failed some really did very well.But it does not change my view on this excessive abuse of the Patent system, because this stops ideas coming to the market. Apple trying to stop Samsung with their Galaxy tablet might have a lot more to do with "they don't like competition" than it's a violation of their design. I don't like this kind of thing because it does not benefit the end buyer.

And again as a system builder I pick the parts I want..not Apple and that's a major problem for me. I never bought into the "Mac better quality hardware" because it's not open up a Mac I use better hardware myself

Apple can't rely on patents to stop other makers coming out with good products.

My first PC was Apple ][ , and then an Apple //e, so I guess I owe some of my PC love to the creators of that machine. I can say this - a lot of what I loved about my original Apples only exists in todays PCs.

Jobs himself was knows for thinking out of the box. On a creative level that is a very good thing leading to some of todays most interesting consumer tech. Still most of that was about developing ideas, not necessarily creating them. Knowing what will work for the common person, simplifying it, and controlling it.

His true greatness and true invention was on the business level where his thinking wasn't always in the best interest of others (for lack of other way to put it).

His true greatness and true invention was on the business level where his thinking wasn't always in the best interest of others (for lack of other way to put it).

Yes, to put it "mildly."

Jobs sued just about everyone for patent or copyright infringements, even for things like graphical user interface (which he stole from Xerox-Parc labs). Jobs spent tens (maybe hundreds) of millions on lawsuits (mostly unsuccessful), and at the same time virtually eliminated philanthropic corporate activities when he returned to become CEO Apple again in 1997.http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/ ... -apple.ars

Not exactly. Apple allowed Xerox to purchase shares pre-IPO with a vague understanding that Apple would develop a product using a similar GUI interface. There is no "license."

Quote:

“Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.”

Xerox sued Apple later when Apple tried to copyright the GUI interface, but the suit was dismissed on technical legal issues (not having to do with the actual merits of the Xerox case against Apple):

Xerox had sought to have Apple's Macintosh screen copyrights declared invalid, contending that they were fraudulently obtained because Apple had failed to tell the Copyright Office about Xerox's prior work.

Xerox also accused Apple of unfair competition, saying that Apple's claim to Macintosh screen technology had made it difficult for Xerox to license its technology to other companies. ''Apple is using its copyrights to hold the computer industry hostage by its licensing and litigation practices,'' Xerox, which is based in Stamford, Conn., said in a motion filed in the case.

Regardless, your claim that the GUI was stolen from Xerox is false. Without needing to go into details, it is clear that a deal was struck between the two companies, as you have now rightly pointed out. You might like to reflect on how your consuming hatred for Apple is driving you to distort the truth.

Regardless, your claim that the GUI was stolen from Xerox is false. Without needing to go into details, it is clear that a deal was struck between the two companies, as you have now rightly pointed out. You might like to reflect on how your consuming hatred for Apple is driving you to distort the truth.

I don't hate Apple or Steve Jobs. I have an iPod that I like very much, and have used McIntosh extensively in the past (and always liked it). They make very nice products. I typically use Windows now, even though Bill Gates is probably a bigger thief (and more evil in other ways) than Steve Jobs.

I don't believe that my claim about Apple and Xerox Parc is false, and at least Xerox Parc (or just PARC now) agrees with me based on the lawsuits they have filed against Apple. Even if you believe that Apple had a right to use the Xerox PARC GUI, Apple subsequently tried to copyright it and tried to prevent Xerox Parc from licensing it to others. I call that theft.

It is interesting how "Xerox PARC was given an opportunity to purchase pre-IPO stock at par value for letting Apple employees look around" has been morphed over the years into “Xerox Parc was given Apple stock in exchange for a license to use the GUI.” This distortion is indicative of the hysteria and religion that surrounds Jobs and Apple.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (and Larry Ellison of Oracle) are multi-billionaires because they are ruthless capitalists, not because they are geniuses.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (and Larry Ellison of Oracle) are multi-billionaires because they are ruthless capitalists, not because they are geniuses.

I think that, more probably that not, mankind has ever been prone to call genius what somehow changes the world, even in such brutal ways. So probably mr. Jobs wasn't (just) good or (and) evil: he was (also) inspired and inspiring (and maybe here's the breath someone's missing now). So long that, again, probably, his most successful advertising ever could be his epitaph, forever.

"Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do." (Apple Inc.)

The geniuses, inventors, creators, they usually lack the desire, ambition and determination to actually sell their work. Woz would've been happy to show the Apple II around the Homebrew Computer Club and receive praise from the fellow nerds.

My university had something like Facebook since 1999. None of the original creators ever realized the potential of this. Zuckerberg did. I'm not a fan of Facebook, but millions are and they owe it to Zuckerberg, among others. That credit and praise are not shared justly, that is just the way of the world.

Jonathan Ive worked at Apple since 1992. Three CEOs didn't catch on. It was Jobs who gave him the freedom to build the iMac. And thank God for that. The IT-industry is the least design-affine out there. If it were for the nerds, PCs would still be ugly beige boxes that you'd wand to hide in the closet, most of the work would be done in the command line and only one in a thousand people had one.

Jobs realized that PCs needed to be sexy. We've had sexy toasters, fridges, radios ... everything, but the suits in the IT-industry didn't recognize the pattern.

And that is why Jobs was, even among the business folk, one of a kind.

I think the most notable thing about Steve Jobs is that he was interested in computers at all. Back in the early 70s only a real true nerd or geek (and those words didn't even yet have those present meanings) would be into them. Computers at that time were about COBOL, FORTRAN, Boolean logic gates, pursuits that would make everyone except the most determined nod off. And yet Steve Jobs, the ostensible hippie artist, was into them.

Why? Well, everyone knew that computers were going to be big money eventually. Steve was from a struggling family, unlike most of his intellectual peers. That's motivation number one. (Also, to be fair, it was California, where new pursuits were undertaken more readily.)

So Steve wanted to manifest and justify his ambition. He set out, apparently, with the goal of making computers as much fun as your home audio system. The rest of the industry still maintains the "business" approach (look at the offerings from Dell or HP).

Behind it all is this tremendous cynicism. The computers are so expensive that only the relatively affluent can afford them. The advertising appeals to the pseudo-rebel, the pseudo-troublemaker, the pseudo world-changer (just like him). The company didn't have it's tremendous growth until the relatively inexpensive toys (the iPod, the iPhone) became the must-have rage among kids.

Not a genius, but a singular person filling a singular niche. His ultimate fragileness probably reflects the innate fragileness of his business and pursuits.

I personally don't have objections to someone being a capitalist, or trying to make money. Steve Jobs certainly did some great things as leader of Apple (although he gets too much credit IMO for the actual products that were introduced).

But Jobs also went too far in filing lawsuits concerning "look and feel" that not only prevented Xerox Parc from licensing their own technology to others, but has prevented many other companies from using it as well (although we are somewhat fortunate that most of Apple’s intellectual property lawsuits have not been successful).

Lawsuits concerning patents/copyrights are way out of control in the realm of software technology, and patents/copyrights are being granted for things that they should not be granted for, and Steve Jobs was one of the main reasons for this ridiculous excess. All of these lawsuits were designed to prevent competition and make obscene amounts of money for Apple and Jobs, and not to make the world a better place.

One of the most ridiculous things I read about Steve Jobs is how he only got a salary of $1 per year, as if he were some kind altruistic person, working for free to bring us these “great” products. There are very few CEO’s who make a base salary of more than a million or two, but the have bonuses and many of them make tens, or hundreds of millions per year in stock options that are granted to them. Steve Jobs was no exception to this, and he made billions at Apple as CEO, even with his $1 per year base salary. Meg Whitman just took over HP at a salary of $1 per year, but like Jobs, with lots of stock options.

Why are people surprised that Jobs is being mourned in the business world? He did what all businesses strive to do, sell a product for more than twice what it should sell for by turning it into a fad. Fashion is the most obvious example of this type of BS. Jobs broke new ground because he "Nike'd" what usually passes for geeky electronics.

Who mourns all the suicides over at Foxconn, the low bidder for his stuff? Nobody. But get used to it, because corporations are people too. And their feet are much bigger than yours.

If anybody in this country has job security anymore it's the advertising department at Apple, or whomever they hired to do the job.

_________________People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither﻿ patriots nor human beings.

If anybody in this country has job security anymore it's the advertising department at Apple, or whomever they hired to do the job.

One of the things that made Jobs an "effective" business executive is that no one at Apple had any job security (not even him). Jobs intimidated people and fired them at a drop of hat. He ruled mostly by fear (or the demand that their work and products be insanely great, to put it more nicely). Even the best and longest-term Apple employees say they were always afraid of being publicly humiliated by Jobs.

Advertising departments of corporations almost always rely on outside ad agencies to come up with the creative ad campaigns, and the agencies sometimes get switched out regularly, especially if sales are not so good (even if the products are crappy). Working for an ad agency is a very high stress job for that reason.

No doubt Jobs and Herman Cain share a lot of DNA, certainly the F-Y-I-GOT-MINE gene.

Cain? That one who said: "If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It's not a person's fault because they succeeded. It is a person's fault if they failed." ? Interesting man: was he enough fool, or just hungry?

(BTW, I don't understand why such enlightened USA capitalists - moderates? conservatives? - never learn Macchiavelli: but I'm not american as well!)

Whilst it is true that there is never a shortage of BS in general, Steve Jobs’s own cesspool was an unusual mix of ingredients that made him and Apple spectacularly compelling to the amoebas in the media.Part low rent tech-shaman, part snake oil salesman, part rock star, he was a compelling but flawed figure that made life more interesting even to people as myself that detest Apple more each year. So he will be missed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum